Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (9472)	9/14/2009 11:11:45 AM
From: i-node	1 Recommendation Respond to of 42652

Even if we put everyone on medicare, wouldn't you still be able to choose your doctor or choose your own hospital etc? Undoubtedly. At first. But suppose some government committee "decides" that Medicare could operate more efficiently, save money, if ALL patients were to be seen first by a Nurse Practitioner, and that visiting a primary care physician requires a referral from a NP? Suppose that committee determines further that it would be less expensive if all patients undergoing particular procedures be seen at selected facilities, and your choice of hospital isn't among them? Then what?

To: Mary Cluney who wrote (9472)	9/14/2009 2:20:54 PM
From: skinowski	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

How would a government takeover scenario play out (or come about)? First, I need to say that Lane is right, and that it is unlikely that the government would want to be a direct employer of everyone working in healthcare. That said, this is far from being unheard of. At least for now this would be political impossible. Even if we put everyone on medicare, wouldn't you still be able to choose your doctor or choose your own hospital etc? I think i-node is right - in time this may change. I spoke recently with some old friends - a couple, both U professors. They are strongly pro-reform, but they love their insurance... if they'll lose it, they'd be seriously upset. What I mean to suggest is that a government takeover is a very far fetched scenario. Why? It's been done time and again. It's the nature of any business to want to grow, and Governments are no exception. If you are in charge of a department consisting of 10 government employees, you'll want to increase it to a 100, or more. That's how success is defined. The more governments can take from Peter and give to Paul, the more power they have and the more relevant they become. So, why would they want to search for non-governmental solutions? Roosevelt intimidated the Supreme Court by threatening to "pack" it... He was going to restructure the Court... that's how strongly he felt about moving on with his projects.